The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

Last week, a delegation to council‘s physical development committee stated he feltemmcilmunflirlyuking.mu segment (those who actually use city parking lots) to pay for the provision of parking. Mark Schram, representi 54 individuâ€" als who kincitylot::gnidhefelt wfich:Hbethempowbifitydall taxpayers, and noted the 1992 rates apâ€" proved by council represent a 12.5 perâ€"cent increase over last year (parking permit mately $60). And he suggested that permit Despite a few rumblings, Waterloo city council is not going to back down on it‘s decision last month to approve an increase in parking permits for city lots. Council isn‘t backing down on fee decision Group helps immlris in their job hunt Ch .__WATERLOO ronicle the 1992 operating budget is brought down. It did not take any action regarding a "reconsideration" of the increased fees because that has to be done at a full council meeting. At last &londay’s council of the whole meeting, the issue was again presented. But councillors were quick to nix any thoughts of reconsidering the approved increase in parking fees. Coun. Craig Hoddle told council he had received five complaints after council approved the permit fee increases, and At the Jan. 6 meeting, the physical ;lcvelopnwnt committee voted unanimousâ€" y to instruct the city‘s senior management committee to undertake a "postâ€"mortem" of the process for developing user charges and fees, and to report back to council after fees should only cover maintenance ofihe lots and not include land value. 5.199 Waterloo. Onta forth a motion to reconsider the fee approval, and because none did, it‘s fair to assume none was willing to reconsider. Perhaps cause for the "rumblings" reâ€" Ne oi e n o o n Ee P en is I got a total of five complaints. Those numbers are drastically different, as far as I‘m concerned. Five complaints out of 900 parking spots is not highly representative, which is why I‘m not willing to reconsidâ€" er." Because a councilior would have to put sc S k id . " "I wasn‘t at the committee meeting when this delegation was brought forward â€" I wish the gentlemen had brought this forward tonight, rather than at split committees last week," Hoddle said. "He ¢':laimed that l‘le represented 54 people, and lors, For example, should all taxpayers have to pay for the provision of public ice skating at a city rink, or should just those who go skating have to pay? Or, should al} taxpayers have to pay for the provision of city parking lots, when only 900 vehicle owners are granted permits to use them? Ross McKee, the city‘s director (Continued on page 35) 1 o We aihimir en ioi nb ht is tac db 45 The philosophy, in a nutshell, is that the general taxpaying public shouldn‘t have to foot the bill for facilities or services that only a select portion of the population utilizes. EP piniennbantibr acuke ts â€"A id d tw ul sA posed user fees throughout the city (the latter of which are being dealt with departmentally as part of the 1992 operatâ€" ing budget process), is a lack of under standing of (or lack of agreement with) the plli.lloeogh?' behind user charges and fees arding increased j garding increased parking fees, and proâ€" * Mix of sun and High â€"6° Thursday‘s weather